|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
I'm not sure why some people are so obsessed with getting responses to their questions. People can just chose to ignore other posters if they don't want to respond or don't think a fruitful discussion will be had. Its not like Danglers and xdaunt havn't been banned from responding too much in the thread.
|
That link doesn't show that, but I think I found what you're talking about.
So by poking at your accusation we discover it was without merit, but there is one with some merit you did find and now we can examine.
My point wasn't/isn't that your argument's point is ridiculous, it's that the way you present it is. Just in the last few pages you've made an unsupported accusation, claimed you didn't while doing it again, then attempted to substantiate it, only to discover your accusation was errant, in that you recalled him not answering your questions when you didn't ask them.
|
On May 23 2019 23:37 JimmiC wrote: Not sure why this became the GH defending Danglars inability answer a straight forward question thread, but it does bring up the interesting phenomenon in politics of how the far right and far left some how become ally's when you would think that their positions would be furthest apart.
It has been interesting watching the debate and noting that the "strongest" posters seem to be the ones that best either ignore or disguise their own emotional state in their posts. What GH (as far as I can tell) seems to be objecting to is that ShoCKeyy's 'accusation' came across as "I feel like this is true" without substantiating the claim.
It isn't GH allying with Danglars, and representing it as such is dangerous and further pushes partisanship in the thread. What GH seems to be trying to do is set up better methods of clear communication which would allow for more direct communication about issues, instead of having to go through a page and a half of back-and-forth before actually distilling the original point down to its truth.
That clear communication is something that I feel is healthy from an overall position of discussion. It is also a 'tool' 'your side' could use against Danglars if that was your goal in the thread... but I hope that isn't anyone's goal in the thread.
|
On May 24 2019 00:09 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 23:37 JimmiC wrote: Not sure why this became the GH defending Danglars inability answer a straight forward question thread, but it does bring up the interesting phenomenon in politics of how the far right and far left some how become ally's when you would think that their positions would be furthest apart. It has been interesting watching the debate and noting that the "strongest" posters seem to be the ones that best either ignore or disguise their own emotional state in their posts. What GH (as far as I can tell) seems to be objecting to is that ShoCKeyy's 'accusation' came across as "I feel like this is true" without substantiating the claim. It isn't GH allying with Danglars, and representing it as such is dangerous and further pushes partisanship in the thread. What GH seems to be trying to do is set up better methods of clear communication which would allow for more direct communication about issues, instead of having to go through a page and a half of back-and-forth before actually distilling the original point down to its truth. That clear communication is something that I feel is healthy from an overall position of discussion. It is also a 'tool' 'your side' could use against Danglars if that was your goal in the thread... but I hope that isn't anyone's goal in the thread. The thing to be cognizant of, is that the posters being targeted have a history of giving no or half answers. When called out, they continue to dodge or not answer. This gets tiresome after a while. If people just say yes or no and explain, a lot of this can be avoided. Some have gotten better, but it is still there. Hence this current...issue.
|
|
I wouldn't quote posts where I'm responding to everyone and narrowing it down to the most necessary lines. That's known as answering questions. Some people really enjoy tangents or asking two questions after every one answer. Look up Gish Gallop. See what kind of good answering all those questions gets me when I'm still accused of ignoring them for bad reasons! Some people start with the conclusion that I avoid tough questioning, and expend a lot of effort shoehorning bad examples of it into proof that it's happening.
We're how many posts away from someone asserting I posted something, never retracting, just trying to use the falsehood as a springboard for more "simple questions?" Posters basically asking "Reward me for asserting something untrue about you by answering these new questions!" Zero retractions or apologies. That's a pretty obvious example. You also never commented on it. The way you get more accusations into questions, accusations of bad faith into questions, and foolish asides instead of real curiosity in a political debate is by never exercising some discernment.
Pestering and trolling just diminishes the poster's credibility. One hint is that your example starts off "There's a rather palpable irony there coming from you. You're not exactly an island of independent centrist political thought, after all." That sorta kinda tilts the needle towards just political grandstanding with no earnest desire to seek answers. Wouldn't you agree, Shockeyy?
On May 23 2019 23:41 Sermokala wrote: I'm not sure why some people are so obsessed with getting responses to their questions. People can just chose to ignore other posters if they don't want to respond or don't think a fruitful discussion will be had. Its not like Danglers and xdaunt havn't been banned from responding too much in the thread. True. Posters that have been here long enough know I play fair. You respond to mine, I respond to yours. You show you don't personally insult, racist/white supremacy/nazi bash, constantly imply bad faith or disingenuity, and I'll likely give answers on topics in which I'm not even that interested. A handful of posters here show by their conduct that they are, perhaps temporarily, incapable of holding a fruitful discussion. For the good of the thread, I won't indulge them in every rabbit hole.
|
Trump is polling very poorly among women, which is the demographic that was the deciding vote in the midterms (particularly suburban women). This may be peril for him in 2020.
|
On May 24 2019 01:10 Danglars wrote:I wouldn't quote posts where I'm responding to everyone and narrowing it down to the most necessary lines. That's known as answering questions. Some people really enjoy tangents or asking two questions after every one answer. Look up Gish Gallop. See what kind of good answering all those questions gets me when I'm still accused of ignoring them for bad reasons! Some people start with the conclusion that I avoid tough questioning, and expend a lot of effort shoehorning bad examples of it into proof that it's happening. We're how many posts away from someone asserting I posted something, never retracting, just trying to use the falsehood as a springboard for more "simple questions?" Posters basically asking "Reward me for asserting something untrue about you by answering these new questions!" Zero retractions or apologies. That's a pretty obvious example. You also never commented on it. The way you get more accusations into questions, accusations of bad faith into questions, and foolish asides instead of real curiosity in a political debate is by never exercising some discernment. Pestering and trolling just diminishes the poster's credibility. One hint is that your example starts off "There's a rather palpable irony there coming from you. You're not exactly an island of independent centrist political thought, after all." That sorta kinda tilts the needle towards just political grandstanding with no earnest desire to seek answers. Wouldn't you agree, Shockeyy? Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 23:41 Sermokala wrote: I'm not sure why some people are so obsessed with getting responses to their questions. People can just chose to ignore other posters if they don't want to respond or don't think a fruitful discussion will be had. Its not like Danglers and xdaunt havn't been banned from responding too much in the thread. True. Posters that have been here long enough know I play fair. You respond to mine, I respond to yours. You show you don't personally insult, racist/white supremacy/nazi bash, constantly imply bad faith or disingenuity, and I'll likely give answers on topics in which I'm not even that interested. A handful of posters here show by their conduct that they are, perhaps temporarily, incapable of holding a fruitful discussion. For the good of the thread, I won't indulge them in every rabbit hole.
I agree, I wouldn't insult you if I tried to get an answer out of you.
In this case, I don't think NewSunshine was being rude or un-polite. I didn't see an insult, and yet you chose to go around the question. Before that, there was barely even a conversation between you two.
On May 23 2019 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 06:36 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2019 05:57 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote: I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. You really should spend more time reading my posts than the time you spend (mis)typing my name. I mean, xDaunt literally said "Democrats are making a big mistake doubling down on this investigation nonsense." Your posts are going hand in hand. Not every claim people make needs to be contentious, or a debate to be had. Sometimes people just call something what it is and it doesn't need to be argued. Apparently, you can quote another’s posts to prove the claim. Good to know. I think it’s wise to find a quote of mine if you’re actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts. This is just laziness on your part. So I take it from your insistence on how wrong I am that you don't think Democrats are making a mistake when they bring up the investigations into Trump? Or maybe you don't have a strong opinion. That's allowed. But you should also understand that people get irritated with you when you don't just say it, and instead use it as an opportunity to dunk on someone.
I assume this bottom post is the most closest your position is on the most recent convo. Then NewSunshine question above that you didn't answer because I guess the bottom is your position? I just find it funny that you asked NewSunshine to look through your posts, called him lazy for not doing so, fair enough if it was recent, not fair if it was a year ago. Btw it took my almost an hour to find the post below. I seriously doubt people have time for that.
I just personally think it's kinda ridiculous to ask some one to go back and read what could have been written 100 pages ago... This thread is literally almost 1500 pages. To find a specific conversation is almost pointless unless you have them bookmarked. It's just easier to state your position right then an there if some one is asking, and you're already engaged.
So, I don't think its bad if some one calls you out for it, especially if you don't want to provide your own post or expand on your thought process. If you say you said it, it's easier if you provide it because you know where it's at, just as Green had me trying to provide posts because I "accused" you. Hypocritical on his part. Hypocritical on my part for calling Green lazy.
On May 21 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2019 14:19 Introvert wrote:The House may very well win on these things-- maybe, if things are not obvious but we have to choose, they should win. But it is impossible to say that the Democrats are serious about any of this or that legitimate oversight is their primary goal. An easy example of this is the contempt issue against Barr, where they are holding him in contempt for not releasing something he cannot release. Report redactions
That leaves us with the only ground cited by the Democrats for contempt, which is Barr refusing to release the unredacted report. Senate Democrats attacked him at his at his confirmation hearing for refusing to guarantee public release of the report without redactions. As a witness, I testified that they were asking Barr to commit to a potential criminal act to secure his own confirmation. The report inevitably would contain some grand jury material, which under the law is information that cannot be publicly released without a court order. It is a crime to unveil such information.
Barr promised to release as much of the report as possible, and he has delivered. Indeed, he is not expressly given the authority to release the confidential report. Yet, he not only released it but declared executive privilege waived on its content. The key obstruction portion of the report is virtually unredacted. Just 8 percent of the public report was redacted, largely to remove material that could undermine ongoing investigations. The sealed version of the report given to Congress only had 2 percent redacted. Democrats are therefore seeking a contempt sanction on a report that is 98 percent disclosed and only lacks grand jury material.
Barr restricted access to the 98 percent disclosed report, as opposed to the 92 percent public report, due to the inclusion of evidence impacting ongoing prosecutions. He has offered to expand the number of members and staff to review that material but insists on it remaining protected. But this has nothing to do with the redactions. It is the 2 percent solution to a major political dilemma of the left. Faced with a report that rejected the collusion theories of their running narrative, Democrats want to focus on those 2 percent of redactions rather than over 400 pages of findings.
So Congress now will ask a court to find civil contempt for Barr refusing to release grand jury information. The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a district court claim to have the “inherent supervisory authority” to disclose grand jury matters because of great public interest. To make matters worse, the Justice Department has now said the president has invoked executive privilege over the entire report, making this contempt claim even less likely to prevail over the long run.
Democrats are launching the weakest possible contempt claim against the administration in a civil action with a long track through the courts. In the end, there is utter contempt in this action, but not in the case of Barr. Again, in so many ways it would be so much easier if we could admit what is actually going on here instead of pretending that the fight over his tax returns is about oversight instead of embarrassment. The committee skipped all the steps one would take if oversight was their end goal (like getting info from the IRS or going after more information from presidential tax returns of individuals from years they were actually president). It's just laughable. They're really taking a big gamble on the method of fighting the Trump administration. People that only watch headlines will believe that Barr's pulling a kind of con job on redacted materials. People that dig will discover that the Mueller report was well-revealed, and the grand jury materials are minor and tailored to legitimate concerns, and Barr's done well up to this point. I do sympathize. Democrats spent two years of getting hopes up on the Mueller into Impeachment strategy. Pelosi knows it's a nonstarter and is trying to avoid impeachment. The contempt ploy tries to satisfy the pro-impeachment crowd, but not backfire so destructively to make 2020 gains less likely.
|
You don't have to be a genius to understand the concept of fishing. Just because the first question doesn't contain an insult or the useual behavior from sunshine doesn't mean that he isn't going to go straight to it once you have any sort of buy in to the interaction.
|
I hardly think sunshine was fishing, and trying to get an honest answer out of Danglars.
|
Trump needs to win back that section of America. The question is how he can stay on a message long enough to convince them that he's the best choice in 2020. This is despite his baked-in negatives on coarse language and moral transgressions.
|
On May 23 2019 14:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 13:50 JimmiC wrote:On May 23 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 12:58 JimmiC wrote:Thank you Danglars, im excited for the new you that answers. I choose this story of yours. We have many questions you never answered so start with those. + Show Spoiler +On March 16 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote: Stories abound. My pro life friend was an unviable fetus for several months up to birth. She was diagnosed with huge abnormalities that guaranteed a death soon after birth. Her mom still wanted to have her after being encouraged to have an abortion by her doctors, friends, and family. Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil.
The surgeons were ready the second she was born to operate. She was rushed into the operating room, mom didn’t even get to hold her. Everything was fine inside. No problems. She’s in her early thirties now. She has had to exercise a lot of forgiveness to the people that wanted to kill her.
I’m very much at odds with people that deny the humanity of the fetus to make it sound like abortion is as morally unquestionable as removing a tumor. Ok. I know the current political climate means compromise on when to legally permit the killing of your unborn child (and who decides). None of that justifies the baby-killers protestors of clinics.
There’s also the morally grey protestors that remind expectant mothers that their baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and know the sound of their mothers voice. I know people who are alive today because their mom changed their mind a few steps from the door of the abortion clinic. Talk to them and you might find a moral dilemma condemning all protestors. The questions were, On March 17 2019 01:15 KwarK wrote: What confuses me is the part where the girl who everyone agreed would definitely not live is alive. We skipped over a resurrection somewhere in the story. On March 16 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Just answer the question Danglars. What "Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil." Go on. You are happy to give an anecdote, but not to elaborate on the part that doesn't make any sense in context. On March 19 2019 07:59 Plansix wrote: I want to know the name of the hospital and doctors involved, because they must be terrible at their job to declare a healthy baby to be a non-viable fetus. The world needs to know. Am I going to have to be the one to point out there isn't a question mark in this entire post? I might be missing your point here. Do you think because the people did not put question marks Danglars was unaware they were questions? Or did you purely make that post to be a jerk? Or are you simply pointing out that those are more statements of fact and Danglars story is completely made up? Id rather let him answer, but feel free to chime in. They literally aren't questions, at best they are rhetorical questions that didn't intend a response or signal an effort at good faith dialogue (they assumed danglars story wasn't either, perhaps correctly). If you're going to impugn someone by suggesting they don't answer questions it would behoove your argument to provide questions, not barbs vaguely masked as curiosity as your weapon. If you want him to elaborate on the story, ask a question that doesn't presume things he didn't write is the point. You are wrong GH.
It wasn't a rhetorical question, and I fully intended to recieve a response. The lack of response is purely Danglar's.
The question presumes nothing. It's a literal quote, word for word.
__________
And if you want a question mark, what about this?
On May 23 2019 05:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Why would you assume it to be a mistake? A mistake for who or whom?
Why would you care if someone mistypes your name as long as everyone understands? Everyone mistypes my name. It's gotten so bad, sometimes I think I am Danglarsmousecatdog.
What possible reason can you come up with GH, to argue for Danglars for the lack of answers?
|
On May 24 2019 02:06 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 06:36 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2019 05:57 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote: I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. You really should spend more time reading my posts than the time you spend (mis)typing my name. I mean, xDaunt literally said "Democrats are making a big mistake doubling down on this investigation nonsense." Your posts are going hand in hand. Not every claim people make needs to be contentious, or a debate to be had. Sometimes people just call something what it is and it doesn't need to be argued. Apparently, you can quote another’s posts to prove the claim. Good to know. I think it’s wise to find a quote of mine if you’re actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts. This is just laziness on your part. So I take it from your insistence on how wrong I am that you don't think Democrats are making a mistake when they bring up the investigations into Trump? Or maybe you don't have a strong opinion. That's allowed. But you should also understand that people get irritated with you when you don't just say it, and instead use it as an opportunity to dunk on someone. I assume this bottom post is the most closest your position is on the most recent convo. Then NewSunshine question above that you didn't answer because I guess the bottom is your position? I just find it funny that you asked NewSunshine to look through your posts, called him lazy for not doing so, fair enough if it was recent, not fair if it was a year ago. Btw it took my almost an hour to find the post below. I seriously doubt people have time for that. I just personally think it's kinda ridiculous to ask some one to go back and read what could have been written 100 pages ago... This thread is literally almost 1500 pages. To find a specific conversation is almost pointless unless you have them bookmarked. It's just easier to state your position right then an there if some one is asking, and you're already engaged. So, I don't think its bad if some one calls you out for it, especially if you don't want to provide your own post or expand on your thought process. If you say you said it, it's easier if you provide it because you know where it's at, just as Green had me trying to provide posts because I "accused" you. Hypocritical on his part. Hypocritical on my part for calling Green lazy. The very post before, he used "xDaunt literally said" and "your posts are going hand in hand" to defend someone who put words in my mouth. I'm not some assembly of other conservative posters. I told him "I think it's wise to find a quote of mine if you're actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts." He didn't comment on whether he now finds the "hand in hand" argument sufficient, or whether he's changed his mind on that. Just ignore my posts and move on with questions.
|
Ok, can we please stop derailing the thread ? Everyone has said his stuff for nearly 10 pages, nobody budges, can we get back on topic ? US politics please.
On one side you have a bank CEO who just got indicted (indictment unsealed) by SDNY for approving Manafort risky loans to try and leverage to get a position in the administration. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/bank-ceo-stephen-m-calk-charged-corruptly-soliciting-presidential-administration On the other side, a small federal bank in Florida loaned millions to Trump Sr/Jr, and its CEO was appointed to the board of a federal reserve monthes later. I love it.
A few pages ago we were talking about moral presidents. Prime exemple of why you should not do business except behind a blind trust, when you hold a high position in the administration. It might be tough, annoying and make you lose money, but if you don't accept that, DON'T APPLY FOR THE JOB. Otherwise, don't complain about investigations about this appearance of corruption ? Just maybe...
In other news (a bit older), Trump has already billed his own campaign more than a million, because like he does for the secret service in NY and Mar-a-Lago, he is using his own businesses to host it, feed it, etc. And of course billing it to the government or in this case, his own campaign.
I cannot even begin to understand how this is legal. Then again, campaign finance is taken really seriously here in France, and if you don't comply, you have to pay for the campaign yourself. One example is negociating discounts from "friends" when using services. It's very questionable, you should pay the fair market price, to have equality between candidates. Otherwise there could be an appearance of illegal funding by the company making the discount (especially if it provided the same service at no discount to another candidate). Macron very nearly got in trouble for that. I have seen no followup though.
|
|
|
I think GreenHorizon is right when he says he isn't defending Dangler. But maybe he is just defending these dishonest debating tactics because he himself thinks he is also guilty of that.
User was temp banned for this post: do not ignore warnings
|
On May 24 2019 04:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 03:13 Nouar wrote:Ok, can we please stop derailing the thread ? Everyone has said his stuff for nearly 10 pages, nobody budges, can we get back on topic ? US politics please. On one side you have a bank CEO who just got indicted (indictment unsealed) by SDNY for approving Manafort risky loans to try and leverage to get a position in the administration. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/bank-ceo-stephen-m-calk-charged-corruptly-soliciting-presidential-administrationOn the other side, a small federal bank in Florida loaned millions to Trump Sr/Jr, and its CEO was appointed to the board of a federal reserve monthes later. I love it. A few pages ago we were talking about moral presidents. Prime exemple of why you should not do business except behind a blind trust, when you hold a high position in the administration. It might be tough, annoying and make you lose money, but if you don't accept that, DON'T APPLY FOR THE JOB. Otherwise, don't complain about investigations about this appearance of corruption ? Just maybe... In other news (a bit older), Trump has already billed his own campaign more than a million, because like he does for the secret service in NY and Mar-a-Lago, he is using his own businesses to host it, feed it, etc. And of course billing it to the government or in this case, his own campaign. I cannot even begin to understand how this is legal. Then again, campaign finance is taken really seriously here in France, and if you don't comply, you have to pay for the campaign yourself. One example is negociating discounts from "friends" when using services. It's very questionable, you should pay the fair market price, to have equality between candidates. Otherwise there could be an appearance of illegal funding by the company making the discount (especially if it provided the same service at no discount to another candidate). Macron very nearly got in trouble for that. I have seen no followup though. I almost think there is so much scandal and issues that people think this can't possibly true. Because just one of these many things coming out would have brought down basically everyone else in history. I think the US is becoming way to OK with corruption, it is scary to watch the slide. Which goes back to kwark. Get yours while you can and screw everyone else.
Also, wasted my 5000th post on this. Sad.
|
|
|
|